Nick Seldon - A Quotation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-07-2015, 10:49 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
None of what you just said has anything to do with what I just wrote, Q.

Literally none of it.

"Inheritable probabilities for the children of parents with brown and blue eyes" is as unrelated to my discussion of heritable intron markers as table tennis is to the Superbowl. Yes, technically they're both sports, but they're not the same discussion. It also has no relationship to the gene pool balance equation.

You can't POSSIBLY be that willfully dishonest, can you? Can you?

And the "in our lifetimes" isn't remotely what we're talking about when discussing evolution; that's why the "cats give birth to dogs" argument deserves only mockery. NO ONE, the Bible or otherwise, in their right mind says "cats become dogs". It's a nonsense argument, which is why I said, "Breelawarkbwarfnarf!"

We are cousin-species with the cats, as are the dogs, depending on how many grandparent generations you go back before we have our common ancestor. What you are saying is "I will never give birth to my cousin's children, therefore I am not related to my cousin." (No redneck jokes here, people!) But you *are* related to your cousin, via your grandparent, and your immediate ancestors, your parents and your uncle/aunt, are closely related, recently-diverged. Get the metaphor now? I can look at markers in your DNA and tell that you all, everyone in this discussion, share the same inactive DNA sequences that were inherited from that grandparent... that's how paternity tests work in courtrooms, and it has nothing to do with eye color or anything else so table-tennis related!!

Now either talk about "the Superbowl" in my above metaphor, or admit you cannot, else you will be treated as though you are being willfully dishonest in this discussion, and dismissed.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
15-07-2015, 03:06 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(15-07-2015 10:18 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, you did waste your time if you're only going to make rhetorical arguments rather than discuss the issues. In high school, you and I both learned about the inheritable probabilities for the children of parents with brown and blue eyes. The Bible is saying, however, that over a very, very long period of time, cats will not become dogs or vice versa. They can become new species, even in our lifetimes, but not other kinds of animals. You of course will disagree. That's fine. A lot of very learned people would disagree.




Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Commonsensei's post
15-07-2015, 06:01 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(15-07-2015 10:18 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Bible is saying......

The Bible isn't a science textbook so why don't you fuck off with that no value argument. The Bible says a lot of stuff that's wrong, not just as a matter of opinion, but as a matter of FACT. "Kinds" in not a scientifically recognized term in evolutionary biology, so you can wedge that up inside yourself as well.

Look Q, you third person talking weirdo, the Bible is wrong on most things, the majority even. Get the fuck over it already. All your deliberate misrepresentations of evolutionary theory don't change that. Evolution could turn out to be very wrong (it's not but lets say for the sake of "argument") and yet you know what? The Bible would still be fucking wrong because it's demonstrably wrong. It's provably wrong. So get a new fucking game.

Lastly what the actual hell does you vomiting forth this same stupid fucking display of your own ignorance have to do with your OP? A quote which by the way has already been shown to be dishonestly and falsely represented here by you to give an opinion that the author was actually bloody NOT expressing.

What does evolution have to do with your dishonest quote in the OP?

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
15-07-2015, 09:09 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(15-07-2015 06:01 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(15-07-2015 10:18 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Bible is saying......

The Bible isn't a science textbook so why don't you fuck off with that no value argument. The Bible says a lot of stuff that's wrong, not just as a matter of opinion, but as a matter of FACT. "Kinds" in not a scientifically recognized term in evolutionary biology, so you can wedge that up inside yourself as well.

Look Q, you third person talking weirdo, the Bible is wrong on most things, the majority even. Get the fuck over it already. All your deliberate misrepresentations of evolutionary theory don't change that. Evolution could turn out to be very wrong (it's not but lets say for the sake of "argument") and yet you know what? The Bible would still be fucking wrong because it's demonstrably wrong. It's provably wrong. So get a new fucking game.

Lastly what the actual hell does you vomiting forth this same stupid fucking display of your own ignorance have to do with your OP? A quote which by the way has already been shown to be dishonestly and falsely represented here by you to give an opinion that the author was actually bloody NOT expressing.

What does evolution have to do with your dishonest quote in the OP?

As usual...

PWNED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 09:15 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(15-07-2015 10:18 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(15-07-2015 08:59 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Wow, you guys. I simply chose not to engage with him at all, once he implied I didn't get what the Creationist meant by "cats don't give birth to dogs".

Of course I understood what it meant. It's just such an obvious example of a ridiculous non-issue that it wasn't worth engaging, either with the Creationists who said this to my face or with the one online.

I replied "I'll inform the scientific community immediately", then as now, because it was presented as if it was some conundrum that science was either unaware of or was unable to solve in order to make evolution by natural selection from a common ancestry a viable theory/model. In the words of Monty Python, "Stop that! It's just Silly."

The biochemical mechanisms of genetic inheritance are so well-understood that we can search for markers of common inheritance in the DNA among parts of the DNA that have nothing to do with phenotype (phenotype = the outcome of how exons/genes express as "animal bits", from hemoglobin to fur to dopamine to bone structure to developmental timing... we cannot use phenotype-making genes/DNA for these studies because they are shaped and changed by environment, etc, via Natural Selection, and thus don't provide a basis for pattern-seeking in the biochemical sense) to determine not only whether groups *must* share a common ancestor, but how long ago this must have been based on rates of change within the genome by random mutation (which turns out, surprisingly, to be a measurable and steady figure), in the *exact same way we determine paternity in tests used in court*. There's a lot more to this, but I suspect you've already stopped reading because you're not interested in biochemistry or, well, fact.

Suffice to say, we already understand how DNA and inheritance work to a *REALLY HIGH DEGREE*, and for someone to come up and say "cats don't birth dogs", or any variation thereupon, is to essentially proclaim that this person grasps how biochemical evolution and genetic inheritance works better than ... you know, geneticists.

Stop that, it's just Silly!

I have now wasted the amount of time it took me to type this, since I am certain to a fairly high degree of confidence that Q has no interest in learning why saying something like that to a scientist is so ridiculous, and not an argument but in fact a red herring bordering on nonsense--as is the whole "created kinds" argument, really--roughly akin to walking up to my face and screaming, "Breelawarkbwarfnarf! Breelawarkbwarfnarf!!!!" and then wondering why I find them unworthy of a genuine response.

Here's a simple test for you, Q. When you can (should take less than 100 words) explain what the formula for genetic inheritance is, which is small and easily comprehensible to anyone who graduated highschool algebra, and tell me how it operates to explain why and how evolution operates from generation to generation, I will discuss with you why it explains the ridiculousness of the "Created Kinds" argument, and why I not only am not being harsh in my above assessment of such claims, but am indeed being incredibly kind and gentle about it, compared to the derision such a suggestion deserves, like if someone came up to you and said that the Gospels never claim Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." Would you have a discussion of theology with a person who made such an incredible misstatement, or would you tell them what to go look up and then wait for them to do the research first, to provide the necessary foundation for any further discussion?

Certainly! Such an assertion would deserve only scorn and derision, because you have seen the words for yourself. Well, likewise, I know the very simple formula and I know how evolutionary genetics operate... but until you show me you've "read the Gospels", so to speak, we can't have a discussion.

(Edit to add: I said the above about phenotype because arguing over "Kinds" is arguing over phenotype, what the animals appear to be, while purporting to be an argument over common ancestry, which is really an argument about genetics. If you try to use phenotype to discuss genotype, you're in for a headache and a lot of nonsense. Yes, they're related issues, obviously, but not related discussions.)

Yes, you did waste your time if you're only going to make rhetorical arguments rather than discuss the issues. In high school, you and I both learned about the inheritable probabilities for the children of parents with brown and blue eyes. The Bible is saying, however, that over a very, very long period of time, cats will not become dogs or vice versa. They can become new species, even in our lifetimes, but not other kinds of animals. You of course will disagree. That's fine. A lot of very learned people would disagree.

You have to realize peeps, this dude actually think Behe is one of these 'very stupid learned' people. The Bible has absolutely NOTHING to say about this subject, and there's no reason it should. No real scientist uses the category "kind" in 2015.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 09:17 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(15-07-2015 10:18 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, you did waste your time if you're only going to make rhetorical arguments rather than discuss the issues. In high school, you and I both learned about the inheritable probabilities for the children of parents with brown and blue eyes. The Bible is saying, however, that over a very, very long period of time, cats will not become dogs or vice versa.

Guess what - evolutionary theory agrees. One existing species doesn't become another existing species.

Quote:They can become new species, even in our lifetimes, but not other kinds of animals. You of course will disagree. That's fine. A lot of very learned people would disagree.

Wrong. You do not understand genetics and mathematics. There was a species that is a common ancestor of cats and dogs. Get over it, your Bible is not a book of reality.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
15-07-2015, 09:21 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(14-07-2015 11:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(13-07-2015 08:35 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The inane shit they think is deep always amazes me. It's even worse when you're the "known scientist" in a place full of fundies. They keep coming up to you with their GOTCHA stuff, which you can barely contain your laughter upon hearing, thinking that they are tooootally gonna blow your little atheist mind:

"Don't you evolutionists know that no dog ever gave birth to a cat?!"

"I'll inform the scientific community immediately, sir."

(Yes, I've had this conversation in real life more than once.)

Have you understood the context? Dogs and cats are considered separate kinds. The Bible says animals and plants will bear according to their own kind.

Perhaps your friends would have been better off saying, "Dogs and cats sit along separate evolutionary paths and one cannot produce the other nor become the other over time."

What sort of fool reads the Bible to get their science in 2015 ?
YOU are a hypocrite Q. YOU would make use of every bit of science 's advances today if you were seriously ill. You would not just pray, and you fucking know it. Nothing science knows or uses today came from your Holy Babble.

I think you have an evil twin named PleaseJesus. Consider

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
15-07-2015, 09:36 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(15-07-2015 09:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:They can become new species, even in our lifetimes, but not other kinds of animals. You of course will disagree. That's fine. A lot of very learned people would disagree.

Wrong. You do not understand genetics and mathematics. There was a species that is a common ancestor of cats and dogs. Get over it, your Bible is not a book of reality.

I'm still waiting for the mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating to the point where the "kind" has changed.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
15-07-2015, 09:38 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(15-07-2015 09:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  What sort of fool reads the Bible to get their science in 2015 ?
YOU are a hypocrite Q. YOU would make use of every bit of science 's advances today if you were seriously ill. You would not just pray, and you fucking know it. Nothing science knows or uses today came from your Holy Babble.

I think you have an evil twin named PleaseJesus. Consider

That's an interesting thought... have "Do you believe in the literal truth of the Bible" as an entrance question at the hospital.

If you say yes, you get put into the dirt lot behind the hospital, and are treated using 12th century BCE or 1st century CE techniques, depending on whether or not you're an Old Earth or Young Earth Creationist. Tongue

No science for you!!

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
15-07-2015, 10:34 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(15-07-2015 09:36 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(15-07-2015 09:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  Wrong. You do not understand genetics and mathematics. There was a species that is a common ancestor of cats and dogs. Get over it, your Bible is not a book of reality.

I'm still waiting for the mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating to the point where the "kind" has changed.

That question either get sidestepped and ignored or the answer is that there's some fuzzy kind 'boundary'. What that is or how it works is never addressed.

It is willful ignorance.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: